alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               AHL SERVICES, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED                  NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    SEPTEMBER 30,                      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                             -------------------------           -------------------------
                                                                1997             1996              1997             1996
<S>                                                          <C>                <C>              <C>               <C>    
Income Applicable to Common Stock
     Income before extraordinary items                       $  2,020           $   899          $ 4,125           $ 1,748
     Extraordinary items, net of taxes                              -                 -             (385)                -
                                                             --------           -------          -------           -------
     Net income                                              $  2,020           $   899          $ 3,740           $ 1,748
                                                             ========           =======          =======           =======

Weighted Average Shares
     Common shares                                             10,853             8,353           10,075             8,353
     Common share equivalents applicable to
     stock options and warrants outstanding                       335               204              256               204
                                                             --------           -------          -------           -------
Weighted average common and common
    equivalent shares outstanding during
    the period                                                 11,188             8,557           10,331             8,557
                                                             ========           =======          =======           =======

Per Share Amount
     Income before extraordinary items                       $   0.18           $  0.10          $  0.40           $  0.20
     Extraordinary items, net of taxes                              -                 -             (.04)                -
                                                             --------           -------          -------           -------
     Net income                                              $   0.18           $  0.10          $  0.36           $  0.20
                                                             ========           =======          =======           =======
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 39052)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Institutional Training Program (T32) Review SEP.

*Date:* October 25, 2021.

*Time:* 09:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*Place:* National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

*Contact Person:* John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 959 Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3398, *hayesj@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 19, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-15647 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arvin L. Strauf, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 11,1984, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree.

The judgment should be affirmed. There was sufficient evidence that the victim suffered the “physical injury” necessary to sustain defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree *(People v Rojas,*61 NY2d 726). No other allegations of error require comment.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kim Young, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered April 26,1984, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements (Posner, J.).

Judgment affirmed.

The record indicates that defendant was properly advised of his *Miranda*rights and that he understood and spoke English sufficiently to knowingly and voluntarily waive them. Since the Judge at the suppression hearing actually observed defendant and heard the testimony, his determination in this regard should not be disturbed. Defendant has advanced no persuasive reason for us to find that the hearing court was in error *{People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *cert denied*400 US 851).

*776In addition, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence warrants modification in the interest of justice *(People v Towns,*109 AD2d 764; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frantz MICHEL, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Freon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6307.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Dawn Elise Murphy-Johnson, Barry Joel Pollack, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, DC, for Appellant. John Staige Davis, V, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frantz Michel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Michel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### EUROPA MARITIME S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANGANESE TRANS ATLANTIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Systemar Co. Ltd., Empire Chemical, LLC, Privat Intertrading, Defendants.

No. 11-1256-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 19, 2011.

Garth S. Wolfson, Mahoney & Keane, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Richard J. Colosimo, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

*815SUMMARY ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court’s jurisdiction over appeals from a district court is limited to “final decisions.” Defendant-Appellant Manganese Trans Atlantic Corporation appeals from a district court order denying its motion to vacate a Rule B maritime attachment as moot, and denying its motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The order, without question, is not a “final order” for the purposes of appellate review, because it did not “end[ ] the litigation on the merits and leave[ ] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” *Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Trans. Malmo AB,*525 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not certify its order for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The order is not within the limited class of “[ijnterlocutory decrees ... determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). *See Astarte Shipping Co. v. Allied Steel & Exp. Serv.,*767 F.2d 86, 88 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam). And this interlocutory appeal does not fall within the narrow “collateral order” doctrine, because the district court’s order is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” *See Will v. Hallock,*546 U.S. 345, 349, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). Unlike, for example, claims of sovereign or governmental immunity, which are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because immunity grants a “right not to stand trial,” *In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,*521 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted), a claim that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant is simply a claimed right on the part of the defendant not to be subject to the judgment of a particular forum. Denial of that claim, therefore, cannot be immediately appealed. *See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard,*486 U.S. 517, 527, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (“[T]he denial of a claim of lack of [personal] jurisdiction is not an immediately appealable collateral order.”); *see also Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser,*490 U.S. 495, 501, 109 S.Ct. 1976, 104 L.Ed.2d 548 (1989).

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research
                                    Emerging Pests and Pathogens ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Location Support Unit
               Aboutus
               Business
               Main
               Event Home Page
               Robert W. Holley Biography
               Dedication Information
               Directions to the Holley Center
               Center Dedication
               Northeast Symposium on Proteomics and Protein Chemistry
               Registration
               Research
               Research Projects


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
##### 



SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT
 Amendment Effective Date Company VNGI VNGDI Lenders Agent Credit Agreement
 Recital
  Amendment
  Definitions
 Amendments to Credit Agreement
 New Definition




---



##### 



Reynolds Acquisition
 Second Amendment
 Maximum Availability
 Replacement of Schedules
 Amendment of Section 2.02(b)
 Exhibit A Revolving
Notes
 Consent
    2




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties
    Conditions
    3




---



##### 



Guarantor Consent/Affirmation
 Binding on Successors and Assigns
 Governing Law/Entire Agreement/Survival
 Further Agreements and Acknowledgments
   4




---



##### 



Counterparts
  VALLEY NATIONAL GASES, INC.,a West Virginia corporationBy:VALLEY NATIONAL GASES INCORPORATEDa Pennsylvania corporationBy:VALLEY NATIONAL GASES DELAWARE,INC., a Delaware corporationBy:
 5




---



##### 



JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Lender and as AgentBy:Printed:Title:
 6




---



##### 



NATIONAL CITY BANKBy:Printed:Title:
 7




---



##### 



FIFTH THIRD BANKBy:Printed:Title:
 8




---



##### 



LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy:Printed:Title:
 9




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 FIFTH AMENDED AND RESTATED REVOLVING NOTE
 U.S. $
    
    October, 2005




---



##### 



VALLEY NATIONAL GASES, INC.By:Printed:Title:
 2




---



##### 



Lender
    
    Commitment
    
    Commitment PercentageJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
    
    $36,300,000
    
    40.33 %National City Bank
    
    $26,700,000
    
    29.66 %Fifth Third Bank
    
    $15,000,000
    
    16.66 %LaSalle Bank National Association
    
    $12,000,000
    
    13.33 %




---



##### 



APPLICABLE
    
    LEVEL I
    
    LEVEL II
    
    LEVEL III
    
    LEVEL IVMARGIN
    
    STATUS
    
    STATUS
    
    STATUS
    
    STATUSEurodollar Rate
    
    1.00 %
    
    1.25 %
    
    1.50 %
    
    1.875 %Floating Rate
    
    0.0 %
    
    0.0 %
    
    0.0 %
    
    0.0 %
 LEVEL I
    
    LEVEL II
    
    LEVEL III
    
    LEVEL IVSTATUS
    
    STATUS
    
    STATUS
    
    STATUSApplicable Fee Rate
    
    0.125 %
    
    0.125 %
    
    0.125 %
    
    0.25 %Applicable
L/C Fee Rate
    
    1.0  %
    
    1.25 %
    
    1.50  %
    
    1.875 %




---



#####
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 926 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 926

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2011

   Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
    Cardin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 
            Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-
Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil, natural 
gas, or any other mineral in--
            ``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
            ``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ole Jesperson *vs.*Martin V. B. Phillips.

May 11, 1891.

Negligence — Setting Fire. — Evidence held-sufficient to sustain a verdict that defendant was negligent in respect to a lire set by him to the grass on his farm..

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Anoka county, *Hooker,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a verdict of $175 for plaintiff.

*Albert F. Foster,*for appellant.

*G. H.*Wyman, for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Action for setting fire to grass on defendant’s farm, and so negligently watching and tending the same that the fire extended to and burned over plaintiff’s farm, destroying hay, a building, and some fence. The only question in the ease is, was the evidence sufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff? It was abundant to prove that defendant started the fire, — as he claims, for a back fire to protect his property from a fire already raging near and threatening his farm. On the question of negligence the evidence was not so full, but we think it was such as to make a case for the jury. It appears that there was a wind blowing, and that the grass was very dry, so that the fire, when set, advanced very rapidly: To the north of defendant, — the direction in which the wind was blowing, — and extending to plaintiff’s farm, was a marsh, covered with tall, dry grass. While defendant might, to protect his own property, start aback fire, it was his duty in doing so, if it was likely to do damage to others, to exercise such care and diligence in guarding it as an honest and prudent man would use to prevent such damage. It was evident from the condition of things that a fire set, unless guarded, would spread and injure others. It does not appear what care was taken, or that any was taken, to prevent that result.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Philip Rosner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer certify, to the best of
my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

     1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
              or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
              and

     2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2005


/s/ Philip Rosner
------------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



NOTE: A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       23